To gauge the adequacy of the institutional framework and practice, it was necessary to establish a set of criteria. Chapter 4 sets out how I did this. The starting point was to examine four risk-based concepts that are designed to assist decision making in the context of pervasive uncertainty and dynamic change. They were chosen because they provide a range of different approaches to minimising risk of harm to society and, in particular, for managing risk where it is uncertain and changing over time, sometimes in surprising ways. The concepts chosen also have currency in the literature about climate change risk decision making. They are described according to their characteristic stance on addressing a given situation: the precautionary principle; risk management; adaptive management; and transformational change. The four concepts were assessed according to how well each enabled uncertainty and dynamic change to be addressed.
This assessment was complemented by transitions and resilience thinking where this informed the analysis. From this analysis, several characteristics of frameworks and practices emerged that were judged as enabling uncertainty and dynamic change to be addressed by decision makers. These were used as criteria for assessing the adequacy of the current framework and the practice.
Adequacy was defined in terms of capacity to allow or enable decision makers to respond to the climate change decision challenge, discussed in Chapter 2, through the institutional ground rules and conditions encountered in practice.
52 3.2.2 Assessing the adequacy of the framework
The New Zealand institutional framework (introduced in Chapter 2) was then described in more detail, and is presented in Chapter 5. This description was developed from my own knowledge, commentaries from the literature and government documents about the history of the framework, and information derived from interviews and workshops conducted for this research. The adequacy analysis of the framework, which is also presented in Chapter 5, drew on the criteria established in Chapter 4. This enabled the extent to which the criteria were ‘wired into’ the institutional ground rules to be gauged, and thus whether, or how, uncertainty and dynamic climate change can be addressed in decision making that is undertaken within those institutions.
3.2.3 Understanding the current practice, its adequacy, enablers and entry points Data collection
The data-collection objective was to assemble as complete a baseline understanding of the current practice as feasible, prior to assessing its adequacy. Practice is undertaken at a number of loci within each government entity and influenced in turn by the structure of the organisation and the disciplines of the practitioners. A distinction is made in this thesis between those who advise decision makers or have administrative authority for decisions and are driven by their organisational function and professional disciplinary practice, and decision makers who are elected democratically by the community they represent and are empowered by statute to make decisions.
It was thus necessary to capture the range of these characteristics because many different decision-making functions are affected by changing climate, including strategic and long-term planning, council and community asset management, infrastructure, land-use planning, natural hazard and flood management and emergency management.
Accordingly, practice information was collected from a sample of practitioners and decision makers who were selected using purposive sampling to reflect their functions within a council or organisation or for their particular experience or role. This enabled the complexity and potential influence of the different governance arrangements, organisations and disciplinary practices to be assessed. Interviews were complemented with document analysis and workshops. Ethics approval was received from the Victoria University of Wellington Ethics Committee in January 2011.
Respondents were initially recruited in four geographic locations (see Figure 3.1)—from the Auckland, Wellington, Dunedin, and Tasman/Nelson regions. These selected locations exhibited a range of features and processes that related to the research questions (Silverman, 2011, p. 388)
53
and provided a spread of council types (a unique new unitary18 structure—Auckland Council;
unitary—Tasman and Nelson; regional—Otago and Greater Wellington; city—Dunedin and Wellington; and district—Kapiti Coast, councils); different mixes of urban and rural situations;
and councils at different stages of addressing climate risks. A snowball approach (Creswell, 2009) was used to recruit further respondents from additional councils and agencies in New Zealand during the research process. These were suggested by participants or identified from the researcher’s knowledge of people with relevant experience and insights. This allowed for deeper examination of specific issues that arose during the course of the interviews, or to reflect new approaches being developed by some councils. Interviewing stopped at the point where no further new information relevant to the emerging themes was being added (Silverman, 2011).
Figure 3.1 New Zealand local government regions and districts
Source: http://www.creativenz.govt.nz/en/getting-funded/funding-forms/map-territorial-local-authority-boundaries
Note: The light pink shaded areas are regional councils; the dark pink shaded areas are unitary councils; the red shaded areas are district councils including city councils
18 A unitary council is one that has regional and territorial local government functions.
54
Fifty-six in-depth semi-structured interviews (lasting one to two hours) were conducted during 2011 and 2012. Participants included strategic planners, spatial/statutory planners, engineers, emergency managers, catchment and flood managers, hazard managers, climate change officers, chief executives, politicians, legal professionals, central government policy and infrastructure advisors and local government association advisors (see Appendix 3). The interviews were designed to elicit the actual current practices employed and the institutional barriers to and enablers of decision making for addressing uncertainty and dynamic climate change. The characteristics of the climate risk were described in an information sheet (information sheets and consent forms are in Appendix 4) which was emailed to the respondents ahead of the interview and then summarised verbally at the beginning of each interview. A semi-structured interview process served as a framework within which participants talked about their experience. The interviews were digitally recorded and notes taken, with the interviewer interacting to clarify, seek elaboration in more depth or to keep the respondents focused on the research questions. The digital recordings were transcribed for their analysis later.
A similar process was used to recruit and interview respondents from non-climate decision settings that addressed uncertainty and dynamic change, to elicit learning that could inform suggested institutional framework and practice in such conditions. Seven potential analogous decision settings were chosen (see Table 1, Appendix 5). Thirteen respondents were interviewed (one to two hours each) across five institutional contexts—earthquakes, insurance, financial supervision, superannuation and surgical risk management. A desktop study was undertaken of pandemic and biosecurity management in the New Zealand context.19 Respondents were recruited from technical, policy, management and governance roles using a similar process to that used for the current practice interviews. Interviews focused on the institutional framework and instruments used for managing uncertainty and dynamic change; their flexibility, time-sensitivity at the planning, implementation and/or response stages. The themes that guided the semi-structured interviews are shown in Appendix 4. The data were analysed for their similarities and differences as policy problems (see Table 1 Appendix 4) and for their consideration of uncertainty and dynamic change using a similar thematic approach to that used for current practice interviews (see Table 2 Appendix 4).
Reports, statutory planning documents, court decisions and commentaries on them were examined separately to understand the degree to which a consistent set of concepts was used to consider
19 I was unable to access informants for pandemic and biosecurity risk due to their priorities at the time.
55
uncertainty and dynamic climate change, and as a demonstration of the actual practices employed by the respondents and their organisations.
Subsequent to the 2011–2012 main interviews, further discussions were conducted with practitioners and decision makers about new practice developments that occurred between 2012 and 2014. The objective was to ascertain in what ways new developments might be shifting the adequacy of practice to reflect uncertainty and dynamic climate change. Observations were made and feedback sought by the researcher using presentations of preliminary research findings during seven workshops held between 2012 and 2014 as a member of a government-funded research programme.20 These interactions with the research participants formed input to the subsequent adequacy analysis and for identifying the scope for institutional framework and practice improvements.
Data analysis
The interview and workshop material was analysed thematically, informed by a process described by Braun and Clarke (2006, p. 12).
To begin, the data were summarised according to five general topics used to structure the interviews (Appendix 4). Initial thematic categories were generated—approach, scale, standards and timescale—to describe the framework and practice elements. This involved identifying commonalities across participant responses and looking for any unique issues that might provide new insights into current practice. The coded data were reviewed for quotations that spoke to emerging themes. The themes were then defined and named. The final choice of quotations used in this thesis reflect consistently raised issues that illustrate the three decision-relevant categories of issues that form the structure of the thesis, following further iteration with the conceptual analysis. Figure 3.2 depicts the overall process.
20 Community Vulnerability, Resilience and Adaptation to Climate Change programme led by the New Zealand Climate Change Research Institute at Victoria University of Wellington.
56 Figure 3.2 Data analysis process
The thematic approach adopted was highly iterative. It drew from the interviews and workshops as well as the document analysis and from my own knowledge gained from having worked within similar organisations and having advised on related practices within national and regional government. The data were first grouped according to the general questions that formed the basis of the interviews and workshops—current practice, barriers and enablers, and impact of uncertainty on decision making. Then each grouping was coded for approach, scale, standards, timeframes; quotes were identified for each group: for example (for practice) “no consistent practice across councils” (this was a consistent comment across the two types of local government, planners, engineers, flood managers and emergency managers); “200-year return period flood taken as a proxy for climate change” (a regional council flood manager). Themes were defined in
Data analysis process
57
terms of frequency of occurrence or their particular illustrative qualities and named; for example, roles and responsibilities, institutions, information barriers, capability, funding and community expectations. These were derived from the literature that informs institutional analysis under uncertainty and dynamic change in a climate change adaptation context. After iteration with the literature presented in Chapter 2, these themes were grouped into three categories of decision-relevant issues: understanding and representation of climate risk; governance and regulations; and organisations and the actors that emerged from them.
In a second analytical pass, the empirically derived information on institutional frameworks and practice was assessed for its adequacy in Chapters 5 and 6 respectively, using 12 criteria developed in Chapter 4 for addressing uncertainty and dynamic change and presented using the three categories of decision-relevant issues. The institutional framework and practice adequacy assessments embody discussion of the barriers to consideration of uncertainty and dynamic climate change.
3.2.4 Scope for institutional framework and practice improvements
The measure of the adequacy of current institutional frameworks and practice inevitably leads to asking whether there is scope for framework and practice improvements; improved, in the sense that they could enable robust and flexible responses over time for responding to uncertainty and dynamic climate changes.
The space for change was assessed using incremental legislative changes suggested by research participants, demonstrated success factors evidenced by the practice, learning that emerged from the analysis of framework and practice adequacy and from non-climate decision settings that also make decisions under conditions of uncertainty and dynamic changes. Enablers and entry points for improvements in the framework and practices were identified and the analysis is presented in Chapter 7.
The suggested possible scope for improvements was reality checked in discussions and workshops with practitioners and decision makers. The feedback received helped gauge the suitability of possible improvements for their ability to overcome institutional barriers and their salience in decision-making settings. These interactions with participants were conducted in three different ways:
(1) During the course of the research analysis phase group dialogue and meetings with councils were used to test preliminary ideas for framework and practice improvements with a sample of practitioners and decision makers from local councils at regional and city councils in Dunedin and
58
Wellington (flooding and sea-level rise), Wellington and Lower Hutt (flooding) and Tasman/Nelson (sea-level rise and flooding).
(2) Towards the end of the research, the enablers that emerged from the analysis of current practice, the analysis of frameworks and practice in non-climate decision settings and initial ideas for framework and practice improvements were discussed with a sample of participants in a number of settings—individual discussions, workshops and through presentations to council decision makers—by asking questions such as: How do the suggested improvements address uncertainties, dynamic change and long timeframes? What enablers are necessary for uptake of the preliminary design? Do these enablers exist currently? If not, how might they be achieved and over what timeframe? What are the main barriers to use of such a design? How might the design be enhanced for usability? This enabled drawing from the experience of councils that were experimenting with a range of approaches during the course of this research.
(3) Possible framework and practice improvements were also presented to the decision makers at five councils (Auckland, Hutt City, Dunedin City, Otago Regional Council and Greater Wellington Regional Council) enabling reflection on any different drivers operating within the decision making and practitioner roles within the decision-making process. The approach used for these interactions was to describe the climate problem; identify the implications for local and central government; present the suggested framework and practice improvements; and ask the participants to assess the ability of them for addressing uncertainty and dynamic climate changes. The feedback was used to refine the initial thinking about space for framework and practice improvements.
In summary, the design used for the research iterates back and forth between the criteria for adequacy developed from the four concepts shown in the middle of Figure 3.3 and the framework and current practice and their adequacy and the reflections from the non-climate decision settings.
The iterations provided an element of internal validation (Silverman, 2011, pp. 367–369) of the efficacy of the adequacy findings and the suggested space for improved decision-making practice.
Such iterative approaches have been found to be most helpful in research where there are multiple views and beliefs and hence different realities, as described by Charmaz (2006). This is the case for decisions about how to manage climate change risk. The approach enabled examination of common threads between the framework, the current practice and non-climate decision settings and was able to give a number of bounded situations from which to draw out new learning. The methods used reflect what Crotty (1998, p. 2) describes as a ‘scaffolding’ approach, a metaphor for building a research process fashioned to suit the particular research purpose.
59 Figure 3.3 The research process
3.3 Limitations of the research design
There are three aspects of the research design and its implementation that could be viewed as having limitations.
First, the subject matter of my research is complex in two respects—the characteristics of the climate changes and the decision-making framework and practices that consider them. The risk this posed was one of scope, and the possibility that crucial aspects of the problem could be missed.
These risks were mitigated by focusing the research question only on the adequacy of the institutional framework and practice to address uncertainty and dynamic climate change, on the institutional barriers, enablers and entry points for suggesting improvements to the framework and practice, and on sea-level rise and increased flood risk as the climate change impacts considered.
This helped contain the research endeavour. The influence of social factors like values, culture and politics are well rehearsed in the literature as barriers to climate change adaptation. The focus
Adequacy criteria
60
was particular to institutional barriers contingent on the institutional and governance framework and the practice under them in New Zealand. Focusing the thesis in this way, enabled an in-depth analysis of a national and sub-national institutional framework and practice, revealing new insights and contributing a novel approach to assessing institutional and practice adequacy.
Second, there was a possibility of researcher bias. Creswell (2009) highlights the reality that researchers’ philosophical and theoretical perspectives can influence the research procedures. My disciplinary training in physical geography and my prior observations and experiences arising from natural hazards assessment, policy processes, climate change science and advice on governance and risk management, drove the choice of research topic and the starting proposition. The research questions and research design flowed from this. The design of the research using mixed methods has built-in checks and balances that have, to the extent possible, managed any researcher bias.
Potential bias was monitored by checking respondent meanings during the interviews, or at later follow-up workshops and discussions, and by checking against the literature. In addition, the interview material was not taken at face value. Rather, the layers of information were analysed and cross-checked with respondents and documents as part of the research design set out in this chapter. Researcher knowledge of and experience with the subject matter of the inquiry, enabled deeper analysis of the issues and access to a wide range of respondents and networks, that may not otherwise have been possible.
Thirdly, the use of snowball sampling runs the risk that the researcher loses control over the sampling of respondents, thus increasing bias. In this thesis, snowball sampling was used as part of a purposive sampling method set up and directed by the researcher. Where snowball sampling was used, trusted advisors identified additional respondents with particular expertise or operating in a particular function in an organisation, to give a wider set of perspectives on the research questions. The effect was to reduce potential researcher bias, by having access to a more diverse set of respondents, and to deepen the analysis.
61
Chapter 4 How can adequacy be gauged?
This chapter develops criteria for judging the adequacy of an institutional framework and decision-making practice. A framework will be adequate to the degree it allows or enables decision makers to take into account uncertainty and dynamic climate change; a practice will be adequate to the degree that the decision rules reflect uncertainty and dynamic change and are translated into decisions based on them. The starting point for considering adequacy is conceptual. Concepts underlie decision rules that guide implementation of institutional frameworks. In this chapter, four risk-based concepts are examined that provide a range of bases for addressing uncertainty and dynamic climate change: the precautionary principle; risk management; adaptive management;
and transformational change. Each has currency in the climate change literature. Their implications for addressing uncertainty and dynamic climate change are assessed. This analysis leads to the
and transformational change. Each has currency in the climate change literature. Their implications for addressing uncertainty and dynamic climate change are assessed. This analysis leads to the